9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ode in itself providing for various violations, offences and penalties and the procedure etc., therefore, Section 174 175 of Indian Penal Code will have no application, in view of Section 4 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code Thus, it is held that impugned complaint as filed by the respondent against the petitioner seeking his prosecution Section 174 175 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained. The said complaint and order dated 22.04.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, upholding the summoning order dated 06.06.2012 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, whereby petitioner has been summoned to face prosecution under Sections 174 175 of the IPC, are hereby quashed. However, complainant respondent will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as per Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. Disposed of accordingly. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By: For the Petitioner : Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate. For the Respondent-DRI : Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Paramdeep Singh, Advocate. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C., is to quash complaint No. 112 dated 06.06.2012 titl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prosecute the accused under Sections 174 175 of the IPC. 2.2 Vide order dated 06.06.2012 (Annexure P-11), learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on finding a prima facie case, directed issuance of process against the accused to face prosecution under Sections 174 175 IPC. Petitioner challenged the complaint and the summoning order by filing CRMM-34227-2014 before this court but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.10.2014 (Annexure P-12) with liberty to avail the remedy of filing revision before the Court of Sessions. Petitioner then approached the Court of Sessions challenging the summoning order but his criminal revision was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 22.04.2015 (Annexure P-13). 3.1 It is contended by learned counsel that in response to the summons dated 23.02.2012 (Annexure P-2), petitioner had sent his letter dated 28.02.2012, stating in detail the points as raised by the respondent in respect of the consignments. Petitioner also sent another letter dated 24.02.2012 (Annexure P-4) stating therein that being pre-occupied, petitioner could not appear but the queries raised in the summons had been clarified and that all the docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001(4) Crimes 127. 4. Refuting the above said contentions, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent-DRI has drawn attention towards the fact that Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 falls in Chapter XIII of the Act pertaining to searches, seizure and arrest containing Sections 100 to 110AA; whereas, Section 117 of the Act, as referred by counsel for the petitioner, is under Chapter XIV of the Act, containing the provisions pertaining to confiscation of goods and conveyances and imposition of penalties. Learned counsel contends that these provisions provide for the various circumstances, under which the goods and conveyances can be confiscated and the imposition of penalty. Section 117 of the Act is a residue provision, providing that any person contravening any provision of the Act, which was his duty to comply and where no express penalty has been provided for such contravention or failure, shall be liable for penalty not exceeding an amount of ₹4,00,000/-. Contending that complaint is maintainable and that summoning has been rightly passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and rightly upheld by the court of Sessions, prayer is made for dismissal of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, or, if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Illustrations (a) A, being legally bound to appear before the High Court at Calcutta, in obedience to a subpoena issuing from that Court, intentionally omits to appear. A has committed the offence defined in this section. (b) A, being legally bound to appear before a District Judge, as a witness, in obedience to a summons issued by that District Judge intentionally omits to appear. A has committed the offence defined in this section. 175. Omission to produce document or electronic record to public servant by person legally bound to produce it.- Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document or electronic record of any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Procedure Code which reads as under: 4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner of place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. 5. Saving. Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. 10. In General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan (SC) , 2009(5) BCR 501, telephone connection of respondent was disconnected for nonpayment of the telephone bill. Said respondent filed complaint before the Consumer Forum. It was held that said forum did not have jurisdiction, as there was special remed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
